Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:39, 4 October 2007

• WP:RFC/NAME
• WP:RFCN

Navigation: Archives • Instructions for closing administrators • Purge page cache

This page is for bringing attention to usernames which may be in violation of Misplaced Pages's username policy. Before listing a username here, consider if it should be more appropriately reported elsewhere, or if it needs to be reported at all:

• Report blatantly inappropriate usernames, such as usernames that are obscene or inflammatory, to Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention.
• For other cases involving vandalism, personal attacks or other urgent issues, try Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; blatant vandalism can also be reported at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism, which is sometimes a better option.

Do NOT post here if:

• the user in question has made no recent edits.
• you wish to have the block of a user reviewed. Instead, discuss the block with the blocking administrator (see also Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy § Unblocking).

Before adding a name here you MUST ensure that the user in question:

• has been warned about their username (with e.g. {{subst:uw-username}}) and has been allowed time to address the concern on their user talk page.
• has disagreed with the concern, refused to change their username and/or continued to edit without replying to the warning.
• is not already blocked.

If, after having followed all the steps above, you still believe the username violates Misplaced Pages's username policy, you may list it here with an explanation of which part of the username policy you think has been violated. After posting, please alert the user of the discussion (with e.g. {{subst:UsernameDiscussion}}). You may also invite others who have expressed concern about the username to comment on the discussion by use of this template.

Add new requests below, using the syntax {{subst:rfcn1|username|2=reason ~~~~}}.

Tools: Special:ListUsers, Special:BlockList

Reports

Please remember that RFCN is not a vote. Bolded recommendations are not necessary, but may be appropriate for clarity.

Die4Dixie

The following discussion is an archived debate of the username below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/User names). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result was: No violation, so allowed. Some suggested a username change, but that is purely up to Die4Dixie.

-- Flyguy649  contribs 14:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs)

I'm unsure about this one myself, and left a message on their userpage, but it seems to have blown out of control, so I am bringing it here. Could be a Southern Pride thing, but could also be violent in nature. Jmlk17 10:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching this user's talk page, and have seen the rather strong opinion the user has about this name. The name, in conjunction with the subjects the editor is focusing on, could cause issues, as can be seen by the talk page. (And I realize that contributions should not normally have bearing on username issues, but I think in this specific case, they may shed light on why this username is being viewed the way it is by some editors.) I'm a bit on the fence with this, I'll be interested to see how others perceive this name issue. 10:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if the assertion is that it's violent (as it is on his talk page, but not by Jmlk17), I don't think I would agree with that. It could be Die4Chocolate and no one would bat an eye. I would be more concerned that it was somehow inherently racist. It doesn't strike me as that either. It can be seen as particularly partisan though, I'd imagine. And given that StormFront and Martin Luther King were among the first articles they chose to edit, I would think it might be troubling. My personal recommendation to him would be to change it, but only for his own credibility. Into The Fray /C 12:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Into the Fray. SGGH 16:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• I agree w/ Into the Fray, as well. And I'm also on the fence. I'd highly recommend a change, to prevent a potential WP:COI. hmwith talk 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• A good faith user name that has been seen by others as bad faith. What's to be done? Should those people be told to AGF, or should this user be asked to change his name? IMO his name has already caused concern and some people will find it hard to interact with this editor, but then many people don't have any clue what Dixie is or what it means. strongly suggest change - explaining why some people find it hard to interact with that username, but be prepared for a refusal. :-/ Dan Beale-Cocks 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• I also agree with all of Into the Fray's points except that we require the user to change his name for "his own credibility". The user's credibility is his own concern/responsibility and will be borne out in his edits, regardless of his choice of user name. I think his pattern of edits makes it clear where his biases (and we all have them) are. This will not change if his username changes. It seems that everybody here agrees that the name itself is not offensive, and since we cannot find fault with the name, but nonetheless don't like it, we should force him to change it "for his own good". Seems very un-democratic, almost Stalinist to me. Let him keep his name and watch his edits...I'm sure that, given enough rope, he will hang himself eventually if his intention is to be disruptive.--William Thweatt | 16:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I may have been ambiguous in my comments, but I was not and am not advocating requiring anything of this user. Purely a recommendation, as I said above. Into The Fray /C 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have a problem with the name. It's a call to a violent rebellion... a secession, if you will. It's a divisive political statement as a user-name... and for those who equate the modern Confederate movement with racism, it is even more problematic. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On a related note: "Dixie" was/is an unofficial themee song for the Confederate States of America. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly suggest a change per the obvious COI and disruptive potential of this name. It's in the user's best interest to enact a change. VanTucky 20:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • • Quick note: It's not clear to me that the user's aware this discussion is going on here, so I did leave another note on his talk page. There may have been a mix-up between here and WP:UAA, though I'm not sure. Into The Fray /C 20:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Much like others, I'd strongly recommend a change for this user. I wouldn't require it, but I think it'll be for his own good and the good of the project. GlassCobra (Review) 20:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• I previously recommended that this user consider a name change. I was rebuffed and my suggestion was taken as a personal attack. In my experience, this editor has a very rigid point of view. With that in mind, (and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive) I concur with the suggestion that we leave this user to her own devices and her own actions will make or break her. Ursasapien (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
  • If that is the case,("and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive") then why did you make the bad faith report in the first place? You could have saved us all a lot of trouble if you had not tried to game the system to cause me grief.Die4Dixie 01:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• I am grateful that Into the Fray saw fit to direct me to this page. I honestly believe that this report was made in bad faith to cause me wikigrief by user Ursasapiens. On the MLK page we reached a consensus after much debate, and the editors there have agreed that on careful examination, my edits have been in good faith, and have incorporated the idea , by consensus, into the article the issue that I first raised. The testiness on my page was due to the aforementioned user having reported me, then waiting until an admin appeared on my page, to then attack me relentlessly on my user page and the Hannity page accusing me of racism towards Irish Americans( which is laughable, as I am of Irish descent) The edit on the Stormfront page was something that some other user should have corrected long ago. In fact, my edit there still stands, and is a testament to NPOV. The fact that the user in the talk on the MLK did not raise this concern ,although the discussion became quite heated, would tend to lend credence to my belief of the ulterior motives of this user. His passive aggressive wikifying of my user page at the same time as reporting me, and casting aspersions on my character on the Hannity page , and my user page when he could no longer intellectually claim WP:BUTIDIDNTHEARTHAT,while wikistalking my previous edits because of a peculiar and personal definition of nationality also leads me to believe that this was an effort to censor me. I made the edit on Hannity in good faith, my position was substantially and factually correct, and I left a note on the talk page to explain why I did it. Instead of discussing his claims of Sean Hannity's nationality on the talk page and trying to build a consensus he reverted my edit to reflect his asinine assertion that Hannity's nationality, as depicted in a info box, was Irish American.Please review my edits, bearing in mind the relative immaturity as an editor, and see if the spirit of each of the edits, and the consensus built upon the issues that I raised are the things that you want here, and if the disagreement with the user rather than my username was the real underlining issue in this report. Please feel free to talk with me, but I feel strongly enough that the report was made in bad faith, especially given his passive aggressive "helpful" offers of the names that he would like me to use( "Dixie Pride" or " Southern and Proud") to be disinclined to change it to satisfy the only user who has complained. If the admin who was involved on the MLK page, who has had no problem pointing out inappropriate users, didn't see fit to challenge my name, then I am satisfied that my name is within the accepted policy on names.Die4Dixie 01:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Let's be clear. Your name was not reported here by Ursasapiens, but by Jmlk17, who I am positive did so in only the utmost good faith. This is not the forum for you to air grievances and content disputes with Ursasapiens, but simply a discussion regarding your user name. Please limit your comments to that. My intention in directing your attention here was so that you could comment, ideally with brevity, on your position regarding your user name, or perhaps read some of the concerns that other users have about it. Into The Fray /C 02:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• • • I want to be very clear. This report came from this user before the fine, good faith intervention by Jmlk17.#

1. 04:41, 1 October 2007 (hist) (diff) Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention‎ (→User-reported) is cut from Ursasapiens log of contributions , and predates any report here by Jmlk17. Please take a look at that, and the context of the reporting.Die4Dixie 02:48, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Forgive me if I'm out of line commenting here, but User talk:Die4Dixie is on my Watchlist and I saw that the discussion of his/her Username is still the subject of discussion. First, can I ask what the "potential" or "obvious" COI problems are? Does an editor named for a Black nationalist have similar COI issues when he edits articles about slavery, racism, and other African-American topics? Do editors with Hebrew and Yiddish names whose meanings are unknown to most non-Jewish editors have COIs when they edit articles about antisemitism, Judaism, Zionism, or Israel? So what's the problem here? Is there a double standard at work here?

Second, the fact that many of Die4Dixie's edits have been at Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr. should not be interpreted as an obsession with King. Die4Dixie made an edit to the article, which I reverted with a nasty edit summary, and — displaying a maturity that is, unfortunately, often lacking among experienced editors — Die4Dixie didn't start an edit war but instead wrote a calm message on the article's Talk page explaining why he/she felt the edit was appropriate and asking other editors to comment. A healthy discussion followed, and in the end we made a change to the article similar to the one originally made by Die4Dixie. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dixie, please note that Jmlk is an administrator here, and if he did not feel the name was concerning, he would not have reported it here (and it should be noted that Jmlk was the one who let you know on your talk page that the name was potentially an issue a few days ago). If your name causes disharmony, even unintentionally because others view it differently than you do, then changing the name would cause all of those concerns to be eased, and a Bureaucrat can do this without you losing your contribution history. I hope you can realize that there are many users who may see your name as not appropriate, or inflammatory, especially considering the specific (and possibly controversial) nature of the area you've chosen to contribute to. I realize your reasons for choosing the name, which are quite honorable, but I do not believe this is a bad faith report at all, and I too, would suggest you change it to something else. 03:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Violation of username policy because: could be seen as offensive/disruptive, particularly when joined with edits of white supremacy groups and Martin Luther King, Jr. Ursasapien (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)." I agree that he (Jmlk17)is an admin. and based on the report posted here he is well within his privilege and duty to bring this here. If you look at this report(above by Ursasapiens which prompted Jmlk17's investigation) , coupled with this admission:".... With that in mind, (and as her username is not inherently racist or offensive) I concur with the suggestion that we leave this user to her own devices and her own actions will make or break her. Ursasapien" then I think I have just cause to say that the original reporting was in bad faith. He can't have it both ways. With all due respect, I see that the consensus here is that I should be encouraged to change my user name. I am disinclined to do so because of the bad faith reporting( see above). A frank declaration that my name violates policy or not would be appreciated so that we can all move on.Again , I say this with the greatest respect for your positions as admins. here, if there is an appropriate venue to air my grievance on that users reporting and susequent attacks, I would be happy to take my complaint there.Die4Dixie 03:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated, this is getting unnecessarily protracted and isn't the place for user disputes, so I have responded to Dixie on the user's talk page. Further comments here should be limited to the appropriateness of the user name if at all possible, please. Into The Fray /C 04:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am proud to be descended from a Tennessee family that opposed the secessionists, and indeed lost two sons fighting them; but I must say that the entire tone of this discussion reeks of the assumption that it is unacceptable to be fiercely proud of being a Southerner. Why is regional pride to be condemned in Southerners, but not in New Englanders or Californians? No wonder Die4 got defensive.--Orange Mike 04:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

My problem with the username is two fold: first of all, in many eyes racism and "southern pride" are inseparable. (Yes, I know, I have "souther pride" friends, I know thats often not the case.) Also, "Dixie" was a particularly racist song that was used during the civil war as an unofficial theme song. In the same viegn I would have a problem with someone using the name "Swastika" in their name even tho it's a religious symbol for the Hindu faith. I realize I'm a loan voice here and the username will be permitted, but I feel it's important to state my opinion. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bring Godwin's Law here.SYSS Mouse 14:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what lyric in particular you find to be "particularly racist". I would like to see a valid third party cite that shows that the song is inherently racist or that Dixie as a euphemism for the South is racist.If you can convince me that it is racist not based on your original research or personal partisan feelings about a secession that occurred almost 150 years ago I would be inclined to change it. I invite you to my user talk page to allow you to defend your assertion. I am certain that you have no such cite or you would have brought it here to prop up this at best lukewarm discussion about maybe asking me to change my username because someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended. That some other masked man user who hasn't come forward ( please see why I assume bad faith on the original reporters part)still hasn't presented. The swastika argument is a Irrelevant Conclusion and also a transparent appeal to emotion( which is a second logical fallacy) so I'm going to ask that this page be closed, the witch hunt declared over, and this to be archived. Die4Dixie 06:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment That's not your decision Dixie, the swastika argument is not irrelevant, merely another example of how a term with two meanings, one offensive, can still be called upon if the user is intended to represent the non-offensive version. I don't think other users are straw-manning you either by overblowing the issue with your username, I think you need to be more receptive to the idea that some people could find your username very offensive. Perhaps a more suitable example would be for me to choose the username "British Empire for life!" if you ignore the length issue, could you see how that may be offensive to a number of what were once colonial nations? I'm not taking sides (being British I don't understand the Dixie reference beyond what has been explained here) but I hope to illustrate that this is not a witch hunt, but an airing of genuine concerns. Let's not start attacking each other and stick to the issue at hand. SGGH 07:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if you don't see the false analogy, but I'm certain that you can see the appeal to emotion. Of course it is not my choice. I merely asked that it be closed. Were it my choice, it would have been closed along, long ,long time ago. The attributing of racism to my user name seems to be an attack.Bandying around baseless allegations of inherent racism based on his original research should be challenged. AS you have said, you do not understand the issue, so how can you possibly know what analogy would fit my username situation? If an African American who was involved with editing a controversial topic with me ( who I would venture would be in a better position than any Caucasian who might be here to judge) cannot see the problem, then what is the problem? That is a rhetorical question, because as you have said, you do not understand the issue. Please do not view this as an attack. It is not. But I do see his attributing racism to a name which I personally chose to be one. The invitation to discuss his claims is not an attack. It is the request for a carefully thought out defense of the assertion that he has made. Pointing out the logical fallacy in an argument is not an attack either. Now I invite you to show where I have ever said that it was my decision to close this farcical debate. Unless you are telling me that it is not my decision to ask that the debate be closed( which is what I did. If you misunderstood what I was asking then I humbly apologize). If my request was couched in ambiguous terms, I hope that I have clarified that it was merely a request. If that was not what you meant in your previous post, then I also apologize.In the later case then you have misstated what you meant or mis read my comment.Die4Dixie 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dixie, I do understand and sympathise with how this all seems to you. Please conisder that Ursasapien may have changed their mind, rather than making a bad faith report in the first place. Also, the report to UAA is distinct to any report here, and if there's been more than one report here (I haven't checked) then they are seperate. Please consider that people may have legitimate concerns about your name that in now way represent an assumption of bad faith on your part. As the username policy makes clear, we try to avoid names that will cause friction or make people uncomfortable, even if they shouldn't, because having a specific username isn't generally critical, and the friction generated can make it very difficult to edit the encyclopedia cooperatively - as this discussion actually demonstrates somewhat. I believe this is the main concern expressed. SamBC(talk) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

To everyone generally, why assume this is a reference to a song? Isn't "dixie" primarily just a reference to the Mason-Dixon line? SamBC(talk) 08:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sam, "Dixie" could have many meanings. Into The Fray /C 12:59, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but all of those (apart, possibly, from the personal names) are references to the Mason-Dixon line, or reference to reference to such, or so on and so forth. But now I'm just getting academic, and this isn't particularly relevant to the question at hand, which I consider settled at an "allow". SamBC(talk) 14:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Several users have said that this doesn't violate the policy. I'm satisfied. If there is a definitive violation of policy with my name, please contact me for my actus fidei so this Inquisition can end.Die4Dixie 08:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Suggest a change, politely and with the final decision to be left to the user. It would be for the bets, though, Dixie, to avoid a possible COI. Please consider it. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Rethought, and I am actually going to say Allow. This is a good faith, productive user whose username, I believe, is not a true violation, but rather an expression of Dixie's respect and feelings for his grandfather's sacrifice, and on a war which happened along time ago. -- Anonymous Dissident 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the entries talk page). No further edits should be made to this page.